1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

I've rediscovered 'film'

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by Mister Summar, Feb 14, 2016.

  1. Mister Summar

    Mister Summar Mu-43 Regular

    31
    Aug 31, 2015
    Just had an aha moment. Have had the new Pen-F for a couple of days now and until today going back at least a few of years while I struggled through the myriad of options with new digital software, digital menu options grew to 'unmanageable' proportions and lost part of the process of shooting. Pre-D, our first decision was film choice coupled with (for black and white at least) specific processing. With digital I was shooting first and struggling with discovering the look secondary.

    Today, I set a profile (grainy B&W i.e: pushed Tri-X) and then shot. Like shooting with film. I'm very satisfied with the result.

    w/ Leitz Elmar C 4/90mm

    Example below.
     

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 9
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. David A

    David A Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 30, 2011
    Brisbane, Australia
    I like the photo and I like the way it looks. The look suits the subject, and I say that as someone who does not believe in trying to get "film-like" results from digital.

    But I simply can't agree with the "I've rediscovered 'film'" bit. I know that you put 'film' in quotation marks but the truth is that what you did had nothing to do with film, and had nothing to do with "rediscovering" something. You discovered a new way you could work with digital and you made a good photo with that technique. Why not call it that? It doesn't matter whether you used film or digital, or whether the photo looks like a film image or a digital image. If it's a good photo then it's a good photo. That's what matters, and it's a good photo.

    I've got nothing against anyone claiming to rediscover film, provided that's what they did. It's just that there are 2 requirements to be met if you are to "rediscover film". The first is to actually use film for the rediscovery, and the second is to have used film before because the first time you use it you're discovering it, not rediscovering it. If both of those requirements aren't met then the person hasn't rediscovered film and in this case no film was used.

    Film is not the holy grail of photography. Digital is not the holy grail of photography. Good images and great images are the holy grail of photography. I'd make the same comments about someone who took a photo using film and talked about "rediscovering 'digital'".
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. Mister Summar

    Mister Summar Mu-43 Regular

    31
    Aug 31, 2015
    Thank you David for liking the photo. Everything else you've said is absolutely true. I guess one of my failings is believing in multiple truths. I'm sorry that I didn't make clear that I was merely imagining that I was using a film camera.
     
  4. Streetshooter

    Streetshooter Administrator Emeritus

    Dec 15, 2009
    Phila, Pa USA
    The film vs Digital debate is a dead issue for me. Whatever floats your boat and gives you the result you desire, that's it.
    If you're using LightRoom, let me know and I'll send you some presets if you like. Maybe they will help you find something.....
    don
     
  5. Speedliner

    Speedliner Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 2, 2015
    Southern NJ, USA
    Rob
    Someone has fun with a new toy and is reminded of an old association and that starts a controversy and condescension? Really?
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. Mister Summar

    Mister Summar Mu-43 Regular

    31
    Aug 31, 2015
    Yes, and my apologies for the condescension. Made me also realize the confrontation of tech/spec and esthetics. Two truths. I might have picked the wrong forum.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. David A

    David A Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 30, 2011
    Brisbane, Australia
    I'm not certain who the "condescension" remark was aimed at and it may not have been you. I do plead guilty to starting a controversy and coming on strong. I apologise for that.

    I don't think the issue lies in the "confrontation of tech/spec and aesthetics". For me it stems from marketing and how manufacturers target consumers. My first m43 camera was an E-P3 and i admit that one of the things which attracted me to it was that it didn't look like an SLR but more like a rangefinder. Olympus played up that aspect of the camera's appearance and I bought it in part because of an emotional response to that hook. I liked the camera and when I subsequently bought an E-M5 because of its performance I hated the styling. I now use an E-M1 and the E-M5 and I still don't like the styling but I've come to accept it. I really like the feel of the E-M1 in the hand in a way I never liked the E-P3.

    And now I find myself seriously contemplating a Pen-F. I want a slightly smaller, slimmer body that I can stick a pancake or small lens on and throw in the shoulder bag I usually carry with me and the E-M5 and E-M1 are too big for that. I used to be able to comfortably do that with the E-P3 so the Pen-F is highly attractive to me and the built in viewfinder really makes it even more attractive because I found the need to use an add-on viewfinder with the E-P3 and annoyance. It increased the size of the camera and came off in my bag every now and then.

    What annoys me about the Pen-F is the way they market the retro styling. Don't get me wrong, I like the look of the camera though I'm a little uncertain about that dial on the front of the body, and I think some good ergonomic design went into the controls. What annoys me is the way the marketing plays on the rangefinder resemblance. It falls short of calling it a rangefinder which it isn't, but it's the hints and suggestions that what we'll get is a more "traditional" or "film-like" shooting experience which annoy me because that isn't what we get, but I find the hints drawing me in because I do have some fond memories of my time with film photography and I really liked the best of my black and white film results.

    Selling something by hinting that it delivers something it doesn't isn't new, and these aren't false claims about technical performance but rather claims about the experience of using the camera. They're claims I find it easy to fall for and they encourage us to describe our experience of using the camera in the same terms if we find the experience as emotionally satisfying as the advertising suggests. I really don't like that and I feel annoyed for myself for being attracted to the camera because of the effectiveness of that style of marketing. I can't do anything about the way Olympus markets the camera but I do find myself wanting to do something about how WE, and I am including myself in that group, respond to it and play along with it.

    I'm undecided about getting the Pen-F. I've been hoping for a new version of the E-M1 because I want the weather sealing and the body and grip work really well for me with the PRO lenses which are great for some of the stuff I like shooting. They're not the lenses I would use with the Pen-F so I find myself putting off a decision in the expectation that the E-M1 will get an update. In the meantime I keep finding myself fighting the "experience" aspect of the marketing for the Pen-F while being quite attracted to it as a good choice for the kind of use I want to put it to.

    You just happened to say something that I'm kicking myself for thinking because I keep continually having to remind myself that what it will deliver is simply not that while acknowledging at the same time that what it will deliver is actually more than a big enough chunk of what I want to justify the purchase. And if a new E-M1 gets announced it will get a similar element of emotional BS included in its advertising but it's also probably going to deliver a slightly bigger chunk of what I want in a camera at the moment. I really don't want to buy 2 new cameras this year and an E-M1 replacement makes a lot more sense for me but the Pen-F is a lot more appealing to me than a new E-M1 in ways that have nothing to do with it's suitability for the photographs I take.
     
  8. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    Hi

    perhaps you missed reading his post and missed reading that he was using a "film" setting on his digital camera

    like the second sentence:
    and later confirms it:
     
  9. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    Hi
    I'm pretty sure it wasn't you, and I'm pretty sure my last post identified the intended target.

    Actually on the "wrong" topic I'll say that I've never ever found a film setting that I like. My problem is that what I like about film is its luscious handling of highlights that digital just nastilly clips. I see it time and time again in my photographs. For sure I've not loaded film for 2 years now and my film use is diminishing due to the workflow requirements (and time and space) but scanned film won't loose out to digital in that way for some time.

    To me the "film modes" are closer to what a "ham fisted" printer will do with an enlarger and a challenging negative. The film itself usually captures far far more.

    Digital RAW capture
    10Dseg.

    Film scan
    filmSeg.

    I expect that the new Panasonic / Fujifilm will get us to this point.

    Panasonic Develops Industry-first 123dB Simultaneous-Capture Wide-Dynamic-Range Technology using Organic-Photoconductive-Film CMOS Image Sensor | Headquarters News | Panasonic Newsroom Global

    en160203-5-3.

    Actually the older Fujifilm S3Pro pretty much did ... but in the race for MOAR Megapixels the masses missed it (even though professional wedding photographers didn't ... but we all know its the pixel peeping well heeled that drive the market not professional needs)
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2016
  10. shepx13

    shepx13 Mu-43 Regular

    196
    Aug 7, 2012
    Tyler, TX
    Ken
    The Fuji s3 pro was amazing! Maybe I'm crazy, but I feel like their newer Xtrans sensors are actually worse in this regard (Detail in Highlights)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Streetshooter

    Streetshooter Administrator Emeritus

    Dec 15, 2009
    Phila, Pa USA
    I don't think I missed anything. Many shooters get involved with the debate about film vs digital. I merely stated that whatever floats your boat and that the image is all that matters. What matters in photography is not how you do it but why.
    Peace Bro', I may be getting older and a bit cranky.....don
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Speedliner

    Speedliner Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 2, 2015
    Southern NJ, USA
    Rob
    Def not you. Enjoy the camera and the art settings.
     
  13. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    Hi

    well you appear to, because it wasn't a debate about film vs digital ... so you may as well have posted a cranky note about "getting sick of cat pics" because it wasn't related to that either.

    so if you didn't miss anything then you were just venting negatively about something which was not even part of this thread.
     
  14. Streetshooter

    Streetshooter Administrator Emeritus

    Dec 15, 2009
    Phila, Pa USA
    Maybe, I said I was cranky, but I feel it's part of the thread.... you can have the last word.... ..... enjoy